About your Search

20121121
20121129
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4
a lot of these discussions have been about how the republicans rolled back the obama administration, making we can then ultimately overtaken and how they maintain that power once they have it. i mean, cloaked in the argument of what is good for america, but there is not allow a policy prescription in there. >> thank you. >> this event took place at the seventeenth annual texas book festival in austin, texas. for more information visit texasbookfestival.org. >> tell us when you think of your programming this weekend. comment on our facebook call or send us an e-mail. nonfiction books every weekend on c-span2. >> next, chrystia freeland talked about a rise of the superrich, the.-- the top 0.one% of the population and the impact they have in the world. this is hosted by politics and prose bookstore in washington d.c. and it is about an hour. [applause] >> thanks a lot. sorry to keep everyone waiting. i will say a few things about what is in the book. as i have been doing some interviews with my book, a favored way of interviewers in the conversation is to save the rich have always been
decade i see the debt run up under the bush administration is a comparable amount under the obama administration. this seems to me to be a legacy of an extraordinary amount of. [inaudible] and yet we have a lot of economic problems and now our sovereign debt is roughly around gdp and this is the point in which at least in europe, investors have begun questioning it so i am curious in what way future funding would be posed as a solution to problems that the past was not and how can it be financed? >> sorry, i don't buy the premise first of all. [applause] look, we had a stimulus bill, which was about $800 billion. that is a very small part of the debt we have and none of the results of an economic stimulus so where's this coming from? the rest of it is, we have a large amount of debt or a large amount of -- we ran a deficit even during the good years which people like myself don't think was a good idea. why? because we first wanted to give tax cuts to langsam individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do is pump grinding and then we had a collapse of revenu
administration, a roughly comparable amount under the obama administration. this 10 dribble seems seems to a leg say leg say -- and -- this is the point at which, at least in europe, investors have begun to question the capacity of the country to repay the debt. so i'm curious in what way future funding would be -- would be posted as a solution to problems that the pacifism past -- past pump fining was not and how can it be financed. >> i don't buy the premise, first of all. look, we had a stimulus bill which was about 800 billion. that a very small part of the debt we have. none of it was a result of the economic stimulus. so where is this coming from? the rest of it is we have large amount of debt that was -- a large opt -- we ran deficits even during good years, which even people like myself don't think is a good idea. why? because george bush wanted to give tax cuts to high income individuals and have a couple of unfunded wars. that has nothing to do with pump priming. the enwe had a collapse of revenue that took place after 2007, which is the result of a severe downturn and financial crisis
about things like that and in this era, when i look at the amount of time, particularly in the obama administration, if you look at senior officials go to asia throughout the region and they have meetings or others and also the discussion that tends to coordinate with china, there seems to be a lot of efforts try to coordinate. looking out the value of the in the dispute and said that they were shocked and surprised by the level of miscommunication and assessment and the dangers of that between china and japan. so raises the question of whether or not -- i agree with you. i know china wants respect. but whether or not what you are seeing is a strategic or taxable gain by china to use this potential mr. stutzman to look like the unstable part in some of this to help push up the own interest. and that worries me a little bit. >> it is not of domination will respect. it is about whether it will be static or where the agreement will be dynamic. and there is no way that nations are going to agree on what will be the interest. it becomes explosive. >> the issue really is china, india, comp
Search Results 0 to 3 of about 4